All The Presidents Men
So Election Day is looming fast in the UK. Which party though eh? Tricky one this...the party that doesn't meet its promises, the party that can't meet its promises or the party that doesn't make any promises?!
The way i see it is that here and in the USA there is one fundamental problem: 4 years or even 8 years isn't enough to make a major difference. Whats the point in changing policy makers this regularly? 2 steps forward, 1 step back. The only real changes, for better or worse, that really impacted the UK were the Thatcher years and they amounted to 12 in total. We went into it with major strikes and disillusionment and came out a stable country. It wasn't to everyone's taste but as a nation, we stood much stronger in the world economy.
The US impose a limit on the time a President presides. From the outside, it appears to me that if Clinton had been able to stay around we wouldn't have had Iraq and you'd probably have the US as a far more resepcted nation. So ok, Blair has this tendency to do what the US tells him too - or so it would appear. That wouldn't be so bad if it was Clinton in the hot seat - but GWB? Doesn't inspire confidence from here i can tell you.
Still, I'm an outsider what do i know. All i know is that we have 3 "major" parties in our election and given a chance they'd probably all do some good - and maybe some bad - but that won't get proven unless Labour gets another term or two. Hopefully the impatient part of the public voice won't contrive to take another step back again.
S!
The way i see it is that here and in the USA there is one fundamental problem: 4 years or even 8 years isn't enough to make a major difference. Whats the point in changing policy makers this regularly? 2 steps forward, 1 step back. The only real changes, for better or worse, that really impacted the UK were the Thatcher years and they amounted to 12 in total. We went into it with major strikes and disillusionment and came out a stable country. It wasn't to everyone's taste but as a nation, we stood much stronger in the world economy.
The US impose a limit on the time a President presides. From the outside, it appears to me that if Clinton had been able to stay around we wouldn't have had Iraq and you'd probably have the US as a far more resepcted nation. So ok, Blair has this tendency to do what the US tells him too - or so it would appear. That wouldn't be so bad if it was Clinton in the hot seat - but GWB? Doesn't inspire confidence from here i can tell you.
Still, I'm an outsider what do i know. All i know is that we have 3 "major" parties in our election and given a chance they'd probably all do some good - and maybe some bad - but that won't get proven unless Labour gets another term or two. Hopefully the impatient part of the public voice won't contrive to take another step back again.
S!
posted by Oggs | 8:20 AM
1 Comments:
Blair's blind support of the Bush doctrine is incomprehensible. He is far more intelligent than Bush. Could it be that he is a Born Again Christian who has not come out of the closet?
Much as I deplore Blair, I agree with your comments about the candidates.My views are that of an outsider (from the West Coast of the United States).
Post a Comment
<< Home